There's been a lot of stupid commentary on the right, a lot of calls for never-gonna-happen proposals like jurisdiction stripping and constitutional amendments and retention elections for judges. And of course, the usual resistance in the usual places. If Mike Huckabee doesn't wish to be compared unfavorably with Orval Farbus, he needs to cool it. But there's been some good stuff too. I enjoyed this.

I am in favor of arranging the laws to permit gay couples to arrange their domestic affairs in whatever way they see fit, and to have those affairs blessed by whatever authorities are inclined to bless them: Episcopalian church, Sam’s Club, Taylor Swift, Grand Mystic Royal Order of the Nobles of the Ali Baba Temple of the Shrine — it’s a free country, Sunshine. Unlike Barack Obama, I did not arrive at my views on same-sex affairs recently and at a moment of political convenience. But, that being said, the idea that lurking in the penumbras of our 18th-century Constitution is a fundamental national right to gay marriage is simply preposterous. It is not there. It is a fiction, and, just like the Harry Potter novels, the fact that it is very, very popular does not mean that it is not fiction.

You keep making the mistake of calling it a right to gay marriage. The right they seek is marriage which you seek to deny based on sex. Equality is there, it is called the 14th Amendment. Pretty sure that the plaintiffs did not believe they were asking for a special right, they were asking for equal rights. Which they and the court believed is guaranteed by our constitution.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Changing the name from gay marriage to marriage equality is politically astute, but does not change the legal analysis at all. It's a made up right.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm arguing in bad faith, that I'm complaining about the legal rationale when I'm secretly upset about the result. You're wrong about that. I've supported the idea of gay marriage for a long time. Longer than Obama, longer than Hillary, And there is no political upside to me doing so. I just think it's right. But marriage is a state issue, period. All the invented constitutional arguments are made up. That's the truth.

Gay Marriage is the part that is made up, it was created by conservatives so they could call it a special right. They wanted the right to marry.

No I am not saying you are arguing in bad faith, I am saying that you think the plaintiffs were.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Well there you have it Andrew is the spokesman of gay people everywhere. He is the Al Sharpton of the gays.

It does not change the fact that it is still a made up term and used to keep gay people in second class status.

So were the plaintiffs arguing in bad faith? If the court can use the 14th amendment to call corporations people, why can it not be used to call gays people?

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

We are going about this all ****-backwards. We should be arguing that marriage itself is un-constitutional, since it obligates one to involuntary servitude..."Honey, the baby needs changing again! It's your turn! And God, is he messy!"

We are going about this all ****-backwards. We should be arguing that marriage itself is un-constitutional, since it obligates one to involuntary servitude..."Honey, the baby needs changing again! It's your turn! And God, is he messy!"

Well there you have it Andrew is the spokesman of gay people everywhere. He is the Al Sharpton of the gays.

It does not change the fact that it is still a made up term and used to keep gay people in second class status.

So were the plaintiffs arguing in bad faith? If the court can use the 14th amendment to call corporations people, why can it not be used to call gays people?

Yeah, its a made up term-made up by advocates. The history of this movement is fairly straightforward. Gay marriage endured a lot of setbacks over the years, with more defeats that victories. It wasn't until the changed the name to marriage equality that the movement began to pick up speed.

Did you read the article? He makes the most compelling case that I've seen to date, and it was written 26 years ago.

And I guess this is my frustration. Kennedy's opinion convinces no one. He doesn't need to convince anyone. He has the final say. But gay marriage advocates were doing just fine making their case using the normal processes of democratic self-government. But that's all over now.

Played ball with Richard Epstein. He was absolutely appalled by both the ACA and Gay Marriage (aka Right to Marriage) decisions.

He said Kennedy has been consistent in his views, so the gay marriage decision was no real surprise, and there were good arguments for and against, although Kennedy didn't make any of them. As a libertarian, Richard thinks gay marriage should have been allowed by all the states.

So why is it you do not protest the use of the 14th amendment to recognize corporate personhood? I mean I am certain there is no original intent in the constitution for that.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Before you tell me what a great mind he has and his resume, I will remind you that Kennedy sits on the court, not Epstein. Kennedy also is pretty smart.

Epstein also told us that the court should kill the ACA because he couldn't see that the word state has more than one meaning, so his opinion is far far far from objective.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

His view that gay rights advocates are fascists proves that he does not have a great mind but a dark twisted and hateful one.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Before you tell me what a great mind he has and his resume, I will remind you that Kennedy sits on the court, not Epstein. Kennedy also is pretty smart.

Yeah, he's smart. He's a Supreme Court justice. Of course he's smart. What he is not is prudent. He's the hero in his own private western. Prudence and restraint should always be the guiding principle of a judge, because when the Court speaks, the People lose the right to act. In fact, during oral arguments, Kennedy seemed to indicate that he understood this. His comments during oral arguments were spot on. That's one of the reasons his opinion (which as Steven notes is very much in line with Kennedy's other opinions on similar issues) was such a disappointment. He seemed to get it. But when the time came to decide, he couldn't resist.

Congrats. You just proved his point. Disagree with the gay politburo, and you're being hateful.

Its not enough to win, is it? Everyone must also agree, or they're unreconstructed bigots.

Richard's point exactly. You can disagree with Roe, but not gay marriage. Hell, you don't even have to think there's anything wrong with gay marriage, all you have to think is that it's not protected by the Constitution.

Yeah, he's smart. He's a Supreme Court justice. Of course he's smart. What he is not is prudent. He's the hero in his own private western. Prudence and restraint should always be the guiding principle of a judge, because when the Court speaks, the People lose the right to act. In fact, during oral arguments, Kennedy seemed to indicate that he understood this. His comments during oral arguments were spot on. That's one of the reasons his opinion (which as Steven notes is very much in line with Kennedy's other opinions on similar issues) was such a disappointment. He seemed to get it. But when the time came to decide, he couldn't resist.